Author
Topic: World War Z (Read 6024 times)

I know I am behind the times, but I am just getting around to reading World War Z... well that isn't entirely true... I am getting around to listening to World War Z on my IPOD and I am loving every minute of it.

My question is has anyone seen the movie? The thing I like about the book is that it is told from a lot of different point of views but the movie trailers I have seen focus on one character in the US Government.

I assume the movie is based off the book, but does it follow the book? Does it follow certain storylines in the book? Is it any good?

I am not a big movie watcher, but I was wondering if I like the book would I like the movie?

The movie doesn't come out until June 21st, so I doubt anyone has seen it yet. I, too, recently finished the book and really liked it despite not having any central sympathetic character to become emotionally invested in. I haven't watched any trailers for the movie, but from what I've heard about it, I get the feeling that it will be loosely built around the overall story of the Zombie Apocalypse but not actually tell many of the specific stories from the book. Or maybe some if the individual stories will be like cameos, making appearances in the overall film.

I think the protagonist of the movie is supposed to be loosely based off the journalist who is compiling all the stories. Except he's compiling them during the apocalypse. And probably saving the world with his abs and special effects.

The thing I find most compelling about the movie is that they have approached it as part of a series, and that they would tell the whole story over multiple films. I like this because it's the only way to really do the book much good on the big screen. But I am slightly to significantly underwhelmed by everything else I've read. I'll wait and let everyone else see it first.

All cat stories start with this statement: “My mother, who was the first cat, told me this...”

There's no way this is going to be a series of movies -- it took 10 years and as many production houses to get this one made and it looks like a real stinker that has nearly nothing to do with the book but shared names and only shares the title to suck fame from one of the most brilliant books in recent history. It would be like making Lethal Weapon 12, but calling it The Quran and naming the Mel Gibson character "Muhammed."

I have not read the book, but I've read a lot about the movie and was just discussing this last night with some friends. They seemed to think making an effective movie that really followed the book would be next to impossible just due to the differing mediums. I don't know; I saw a preview for the film yesterday too and that preview looked pretty interesting to me.

I think it looks interesting as "28 Months Later," but as a movie related to the book WWZ, it looks like a real wash. WWZ had shambling zombies, not runners. And everything that's interesting about the book is how the author imagined things about the nature of zombies that I've never heard anyone thing about before: how they can walk into one side of a lake and walk out the other side a month later; how they freeze in winter so that you have to return each spring to do more cleanup; how getting one infected person on a ship would in essence make a floating plague palace; how a blind person might be able to defend against them -- just fantastic stuff.

I'm going to see it; maybe even in the theater since it's such an effects-heavy movie that it will be a lesser movie on the small screen. But I'm prepared to be heartbroken about it in terms of what we could have had (I mean, in the audiobook version, Mark Hamill is so brilliant -- who wouldn't love to see him reprise that role onscreen?).

After this, if the film adaptation of Ender's Game is garbage, the two failures may sufficiently sour me from seeing movies for years.

Matt you are saying what I am thinking too. How could you do it? You can't. It seems like a poor choice as a movie adaptation. You would have to do something like a Ken Burns mini-series to make it work.

Talia, I highly recommend the book. The movie will not be able to do it justice. In the book, people (lots of different people) are reflecting back on the war and it is really like a loosely collected compilation of short stories. It is as much a political and social commentary on views around the world. It doesn't just follow Americans, it goes everywhere. Some of my favorite tales don't take place in North America or involve Americans.

My hope is that they are telling the overall story of the war as it's happening, even if they don't focus on the specific stories of the book. Since the individual short stories in the book give us the whole picture by the end, this is what I would like to see in the movie. And then maybe they could work in cameo characters and stories from the book. It could work. However, the more I see, the less I think this is actually what they are doing.

I'm curious though, if you could pick four or five of your favorite stories from the book to see maybe as mini-episodes or something, which ones would you choose? For me it would be:

The space station

The pilot who crashed and had to make it on foot

The Chinese submarine

The Japanese hacker

And of course, the push to take back the country, when they went on the offensive

(I don't have my book with me, so I can't remember the names of any of these characters or their stories)

These are the stories that I read and thought, "Man, I want to see a whole book just about this!"

I am not going to know the names of them either and I am only 3/4 done with the IPOD listening...

I think the one that sticks with me the most overall is the German retreat specifically what the west german says about the east germans and the end result of story with the commander... but I am not sure. They are all really good. I guess for the social commentary I like Distress and the Brazilian Heart Transplant. For action, the exodus from Kiev is better than the battle in New York (which is what most the movie shots I have seen appear to depict). I also really love the North Korean and Israeli responses to the Zombie outbreak.

One that I love that takes place in North America and has the potential to be in the movie is the go north tale of cannibalism in Canada.

There are also some that just come out of left field like the Japanese Hacker you mentioned. That one makes me smile, but I cant imagine for a second that tale is going to make it into a 2 hour movie.

If the previews are to be believed, it's all about Yonkers, probably moved into the heart of NYC for marketability.

EDIT: Actually, this has me listening to the audiobook version again and I realize that the big wall they're climbing in the trailer is probably Israel. So there's hope that there could be at least two locations in the movie.

I would like to see the real battle of Yonkers. I'd like to see the story about the move north to Canada and the Lord of the Flies like devolvement of that group. And the Redeker plan (Orange 84), the ferals, and the ship graveyard (in Bombay?) would make great horror flicks.

Have they released the unabridged audiobook yet? The abridged version was good and I know they were working on a full version roughly in conjunction with the film. I've only listened to the abridged version (twice) and read the book once. If you don't read the book, you should listen. The production values range from above average to stunningly good.

All cat stories start with this statement: “My mother, who was the first cat, told me this...”

There's no way this is going to be a series of movies -- it took 10 years and as many production houses to get this one made and it looks like a real stinker that has nearly nothing to do with the book but shared names and only shares the title to suck fame from one of the most brilliant books in recent history. It would be like making Lethal Weapon 12, but calling it The Quran and naming the Mel Gibson character "Muhammed."

"The LA Times is reporting that Paramount executives and World War Z helmer Marc Forster view the project as the first in three flicks which would blend “the grounded, gun-metal realism of [the Jason Bourne series with] the unsettling end-times vibe of AMC’s The Walking Dead.” The publication also compares the first WWZ film to Steven Soderbergh’s Contagion, with regards to its “geo-political bent” and how it functions as part social commentary, part Hollywood blockbuster."

There's no way this is going to be a series of movies -- it took 10 years and as many production houses to get this one made and it looks like a real stinker that has nearly nothing to do with the book but shared names and only shares the title to suck fame from one of the most brilliant books in recent history. It would be like making Lethal Weapon 12, but calling it The Quran and naming the Mel Gibson character "Muhammed."

"The LA Times is reporting that Paramount executives and World War Z helmer Marc Forster view the project as the first in three flicks which would blend “the grounded, gun-metal realism of [the Jason Bourne series with] the unsettling end-times vibe of AMC’s The Walking Dead.” The publication also compares the first WWZ film to Steven Soderbergh’s Contagion, with regards to its “geo-political bent” and how it functions as part social commentary, part Hollywood blockbuster."

I've read this basic concept more than once and more recently than the linked article.

I agree with the sentiment that a miniseries would be ideal, but a movie trilogy would be less terrible than a single film.

I hope you're right. "...view the project as..." is a far cry from "...are concurrently filming..." It seems to me that this one has to do very well for the others to get made, and I just find it hard to believe they're going to get the numbers they want. AMC's a great example. Walking Dead is one of the most critically acclaimed, most widely viewed shows in recent television, but they still won't commit to more than one 16-episode season at a time. What the hell?

Besides -- miniseries...trilogy...I just want one movie done with any concern for what made the book great and every indication so far is that this isn't it. I hope to be pleasantly surprised.

Besides -- miniseries...trilogy...I just want one movie done with any concern for what made the book great and every indication so far is that this isn't it. I hope to be pleasantly surprised.

Exactly. Don't just make a zombie movie and slap the name WWZ on it to draw viewers. I won't mind them focusing on a single character or even a single story from the book so long as that character/event is accurately portrayed, including the political and social commentary, not just the action. I wish I had more hope for this film than I really do...

So this has done very, very well. And the second one's now officially on the table.

I really liked the book, went into this expecting a train wreck and was honestly blown away. It's relentlessly paced, Pitt's great and crucially the character's defining characteristic is he's SMART. The entire film hinges, on several occasions, on him noticing stuff and deducing what's actually going on. It's a really refreshing change and it works very well.

Is it the entire book? Hell no. It's a single story that bounces off and incorporates a few other sto create what's very clearly the first act of a trilogy. There's closure to this film, clearly, but the war isn't over by the end of it. What there is instead is a beach head, a moment's breathing room and humanity regrouping. With that in mind, I suspect the second movie will be the search for Patient Zero and the third will be the campaign to retake America, probably with Yonkers factored into the front of that one.

It's not perfect by any means, but frankly almost nothing is. I'm sure other people will gleefully rip the thing to shreds shortly but it's one of the standout big Summer movies for me. It's smart (And most of the mistakes can be chalked up to in character human error), really tense, fast paced and even builds in a gorgeous, elegant response to the fast/slow zombie issue (Their answer, without context, is 'both').

I think it looks interesting as "28 Months Later," but as a movie related to the book WWZ, it looks like a real wash. WWZ had shambling zombies, not runners. And everything that's interesting about the book is how the author imagined things about the nature of zombies that I've never heard anyone thing about before: how they can walk into one side of a lake and walk out the other side a month later; how they freeze in winter so that you have to return each spring to do more cleanup; how getting one infected person on a ship would in essence make a floating plague palace; how a blind person might be able to defend against them -- just fantastic stuff.

I'm going to see it; maybe even in the theater since it's such an effects-heavy movie that it will be a lesser movie on the small screen. But I'm prepared to be heartbroken about it in terms of what we could have had (I mean, in the audiobook version, Mark Hamill is so brilliant -- who wouldn't love to see him reprise that role onscreen?).

After this, if the film adaptation of Ender's Game is garbage, the two failures may sufficiently sour me from seeing movies for years.

I also have my apprehensions about the movie. I'm about 3/4 of the way through the audiobook and I thought it was curious that some of the characters being interviewed said that the zombies were slow moving while others were quoted as saying "Jesus, these things are fast!". I found myself wondering...well, which is it?

Those who dream by day are cognizant of many things that escape those who dream only at night. -- Edgar Allan Poe

I apologize, I should have come back to update after seeing the movie.

I'm not a big fan of "thinking runners" in the context of this movie, I think it negates a lot of the cool stuff about the book, and it's completely counter to the principles Max Brooks operates under.

I'll also say that the movie feels short. There are a lot of locations without a lot of different actions and it is barely stand-alone enough to not have a sequel, so it's very fortunate that they got enough audience to commit to it.

That being said, I and my wife -- both of whom are big fans of the book -- both left the theater feeling that the movie was very enjoyable and did fair honor to the brand. We will see the sequel(s) without a moment's hesitation, confident that Brad Pitt's company can make this into a story worth telling and hearing.